ED PALM | Language dressed in gray

A frequent criticism of my writing is that I’m overly fond of literary allusion. I suppose I am. But, as I’ve often told people, I didn’t study English literature for 10 years only to have to think for myself — thank you very much! And some days, a ready store of quotations seems to be about all I got out of those years of study. Be that as it may, please pardon me for indulging in one more.

“That way madness lies” has always been one of my favorites. That’s what I thought of when I learned that our governor recently signed into law a bill mandating the use of gender-neutral language in Washington State. Given what I do, one of the changes that especially caught my attention was the outlawing of the term “freshman.” All Washington schools are now to use the term “first-year student” instead.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with that. I’m reminded of how the Naval Academy, where I taught for three years, stubbornly clings to the hoary tradition of calling its students “midshipmen” regardless of gender. How that must rankle some of the accomplished women “mids” who have been fighting for full acceptance since the federal service academies first went coed in 1976.

The irony is that when I first reported to the Naval Academy in 1990 I had to get used to the new politically correct, gender-neutral title of “chair” instead of “chairman.” The academic side of the “Yard” was allowed to be at least that liberal.

Reactionary curmudgeon that I am, I have to acknowledge that there are certainly good intentions behind the new law. Its sponsor, Sen. Jeannie Kohl-Welles, has been quoted as saying, “Why should we have in statute anything that would be viewed as biased or stereotypical or reflecting discrimination?” Why indeed?

What bothers me is the amount of time and attention that went into this initiative. It has reportedly been a six-year effort, with staffers amending statutes that go all the way back to 1854. Just how far, then, are we willing to go to erase the male chauvinist bias of the past?

The word “woman” itself is problematic. It comes from the Old English “wifmann,” meaning “wife man.” What was once the only socially acceptable secular role for women, as ordained by men, is still enshrined in our language.

A possible alternative could be an etymological reversion to the roots of the word “female” — which, contrary to popular belief, is not simply derived from the word “male.” It derives from the Latin “femella,” meaning young girl, and passed into Old French as “femelle.” From there, in the 14th century, it was Anglicized to “female.” But therein lies the problem: it still sounds and looks like just a variation on “male.”

I, therefore, have a modest proposal for the governor and Sen. Kohl-Welles. Let’s be trailblazers here in Washington. Let’s throw out the word “woman” and adopt the modern French word “femme,” plural “femmes.” In keeping with modern American usage, unlike the French, we can pronounce the plural ending of the noun.

There is precedent for this. It was the Norman Conquest of 1066 that led to the melding of Old English and French that put us on the path to the English we now use. It is high time we paid homage to William the Conqueror for his contribution.

In all seriousness, what really bothers me about this is the Orwellian flavor of a state-imposed attempt to mandate a politically correct use of language. It is one thing for a group of forward-thinking people to decide to use the term “handwriting” instead of “penmanship” or “firefighter” instead of “fireman.” It is quite another thing when government decides to impose a certain sensibility by limiting the language and, in effect, erasing the history behind the outmoded usages of the past.

This, of course, is one of the main themes of Orwell’s “1984.” Big Brother employs an entire ministry of bureaucrats whose job it is to rid the language of words and expressions that make unapproved attitudes and thoughts possible. “Newspeak” is the term Orwell invents for the language of Big Brother’s bold new world of regimentation and conformity. Is Washington moving toward its own brand of “Newspeak”?

Here I have to break ranks with my fellow academics. There is more rhetoric than reality to liberal dogmas about the cultural construction of gender. There are some distinctions, and even inequities, that language just cannot erase.

By some odd conjunction, the new language law reminds me of the uniforms of Chairman Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Well-meaning though they may be, some there are who would clothe our language in shades of unisex gray.

But mine is admittedly a male point of view. You femmes out there: what are your thoughts?